Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Skype Kills Extras Program

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the who-needs-a-user-driven-community dept.

Communications 104

Several different sources are reporting that Skype is shutting down their "Extras" program. The program was designed to help developers release third-party applications for the VoIP service. "Developers and users will have some adjustment time, though. Skype won't certify any new submissions, but it won't yank support for existing Extras either, that is, until their certificates expire. You'll still be able to install existing Extras through the Windows desktop client, and you'll still see them featured in the Skype shop. Skype will also continue to maintain its public API. Since many Skype Extras are sold to users as premium content, the shut down also has a financial impact for profiting developers. They'll have [...] until December 11, to continue using Skype Credit. Developers will need to submit a final invoice by January 25th; after that Skype will shutter its third-party shop."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

bike, nigga stole my bike! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29392795)

jews did WTC

Skype is for gays (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29392815)

Just like Macs.
Using skype on a Mac? Unthinkable.

Re:Skype is for gays (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 5 years ago | (#29392863)

Skype is on the way out. "Jumped the shark". The new owners clearly misunderstand why people use Skype.

Re:Skype is for gays (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | more than 5 years ago | (#29392961)

There was a good reason to use skype?

Re:Skype is for gays (2, Funny)

Winckle (870180) | more than 5 years ago | (#29393037)

It's free.

That's why they are cutting off one of the ways they get revenue. Hang on a minute...

Re:Skype is for gays (2, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#29395057)

It's free.

So is SIP.

Re:Skype is for gays (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 5 years ago | (#29396673)

SIP is indeed free (in some cases), but it does not offer a way for you or your contacts to indicate whether they are available or willing to accept calls. And the integrated IM client is useful if you can't be bothered running a full IRC session, especially if your contacts are not au fait with IRC.

Re:Skype is for gays (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#29398013)

the integrated IM client is useful if you can't be bothered running a full IRC session

So use Jabber. For that matter, there's also Jingle. And for those who need it all in a nice, user-friendly package, there's Google Talk -- which supports this and SIP.

In fact, the only advantage that Skype has over these is that people already have Skype.

Re:Skype is for gays (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 5 years ago | (#29399295)

So use Jabber. For that matter, there's also... yada yada...
In fact, the only advantage that Skype has over these is that people already have Skype.


Yes, I am perfectly well aware these alternatives exist. But whether you like it or not, you can't just write off the fact that Skype has so much saturation in the VOIP market (and to a lesser extent IM) that you might as well concede that Skype is as pervasive as Microsoft in its own way. (Disclaimer: I use no Microsoft products at all.)

I consider myself reasonably tech-savvy, but many, or indeed most [sigh] of my acquaintances are not, and Skype offers a convenient and relatively intuitive communication channel that covers most bases very well.

I acknowledge that Skype has many faults, but you can't force everybody to change just because you insist on sitting on your high horse and insisting that anyone who disagrees is a moron. All that will achieve is a reputation for being an arrogant asshole.

Re:Skype is for gays (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#29402019)

you can't just write off the fact that Skype has so much saturation in the VOIP market

I think I made my point, though. Pop back up the thread to silas moeckel asking "There was a good reason to use Skype?" And Winckle saying "It's free." That's not a good reason.

You've pretty much made the argument by now that the only good reason to use Skype is that everyone uses Skype.

I consider myself reasonably tech-savvy, but many, or indeed most [sigh] of my acquaintances are not, and Skype offers a convenient and relatively intuitive communication channel that covers most bases very well.

And Google Talk doesn't? Have you tried it?

I acknowledge that Skype has many faults, but you can't force everybody to change just because you insist on sitting on your high horse and insisting that anyone who disagrees is a moron.

I don't. I have Skype installed, because I do prefer to actually talk to someone, rather than walk them through downloading something first.

But that's not really a good reason to use Skype, that's more my own laziness than anything else. It's certainly not a good reason to recommend Skype to anyone.

Re:Skype is for gays (5, Interesting)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 5 years ago | (#29393097)

Calling when your traveling internationally. Instead of having to mess around with phone cards or cell phones, you bring your laptop, hook into the hotel's internet connection (many times free) and call away.

Re:Skype is for gays (2, Insightful)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 5 years ago | (#29393491)

My T-mobile blackberry will tunnel the call over any Wifi access point (for free). Skype has indeed jumped the shark.

Re:Skype is for gays (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29394797)

So your $200+ phone can do something that my netbook and a $15 headset can do, too.
Well played Sir, well played!

Re:Skype is for gays (1)

JorDan Clock (664877) | more than 5 years ago | (#29395229)

Your $200+ netbook?

funny? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#29393495)

I know a Brazilian who uses it to call home, to people who DO have a computer. The cost is nothing in that case, of course. But before that it was phone cards so if they didn't have a computer on the other end it would be Skypeout and they would make the money. But no one would ever have heard of Skype if it wasn't free, so in the balance it works for them.

Re:Skype is for gays (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 5 years ago | (#29394017)

Getting cheap prepaid simcard wherever you are isn't really inferior...just different (and generally a good idea)

Bot solutions have their pros and cons.

And this is, I guess, best of both worlds:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_Skypephone_Series [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INQ [wikipedia.org]

Re:Skype is for gays (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29395433)

not while you are in Dubai, or anywhere in UAE for that matter...
but still skype is really, I mean, REALLY helpful while traveling internationally.

Re:Skype is for gays (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 5 years ago | (#29400439)

Instead of having to mess around with phone cards or cell phones, you bring your laptop, hook into the hotel's internet connection (many times free) and call away.

Oh that sounds way easier than using a cell phone!

I think you should have made the comparison based upon costs not ease.

Re:Skype is for gays (1)

fulldecent (598482) | more than 5 years ago | (#29393271)

if they leaked the code for their iPhone App (so we can easily VOIP over 3G)... then yes, there would be a great reason to use skype.

Re:Skype is for gays (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 5 years ago | (#29393889)

Jailbreak you damn phone, install the app VoIPover3G and enjoy.

It doesn't matter if you have the Skype source how are you going to get in onto the app-store?
Apple won't let certain app run over 3G and restricts them to wireless, Skype being one of them.

Re:Skype is for gays (1)

Nathrael (1251426) | more than 5 years ago | (#29393519)

Not only is it a fairly decent way of calling each other, at least the older versions used to have a quite awesome chat function. I'm member of a community who extensively uses Skype for chatting, and prefers it over IRC for one reason - it has a logging function and messages will be delivered to you even if you aren't online when they get written.

To be fair though, it's performance is *nowhere* close to that of a nice IRC client...try opening a Skype chat with 2k+ unread messages >_> .

Re:Skype is for gays (1)

WaywardGeek (1480513) | more than 5 years ago | (#29394451)

My customers tape-out complex chips. One customer use to use Yahoo Messenger to help engineers communicate at crunch time. The experience sucked. Every time you closed your window, you had to be invited back to the group chat, which rarely happened. I had them all switch to Skype (yeah, I know... they're evil). Our next tape-out had a Skype based chat session you couldn't leave without shaming yourself, even if you turned off your computer at night, and everyone knew what everyone else was doing. It was much better.

Re:Skype is for gays (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#29395069)

IRC can do that, too, it just takes slightly more effort.

What IRC can do that Skype can't is support more than one client, thus forcing clients to actually compete on functionality.

Re:Skype is for gays (1)

badpazzword (991691) | more than 5 years ago | (#29403785)

You surely mean IRC + Bouncer. And even then, offline PM delivery isn't guaranteed at all (you can drop while you are receiving the backlog).

And even then, within a few minutes of sending messages, Skype lets you edit them (no more lines correcting typoes) or remove them; not to mention voice calls and video calls service (one of the precious few that work on Linux), the convenient Screen Sharing and more niceties.

Re:Skype is for gays (1)

acidfast7 (551610) | more than 5 years ago | (#29395587)

There was a good reason to use skype?

you must be American and not call international very often :(

Re:Skype is for gays (1)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 5 years ago | (#29393031)

Oprah uses it and she has a shitload of sheep out there.

Re:Skype is for gays (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | more than 5 years ago | (#29393083)

Horror of bon bon eating house wives video chatting with each other just ran though my head the humanity of it.

Maybe somebody can go bribe her to hawk some other standards compliant voip app?

Re:Skype is for gays (3, Informative)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 5 years ago | (#29393149)

$0.02 a min to China, right? That's all I use it for, its even more awesome when you put Skype on a jailbroken iPhone, Skype over 3g TYVM.

Re:Skype is for gays (1)

icydog (923695) | more than 5 years ago | (#29394747)

I used to use Skype, but they charge 2.1 cents/min to China, plus a 3.9 cent connection fee. Google Voice is 2 cents a minute with no connection fee, so it's better for that purpose.

Re:Skype is for gays (1)

badpazzword (991691) | more than 5 years ago | (#29403793)

Not everybody lives in US, you insensitive clod!

Re:Skype is for gays (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 5 years ago | (#29400089)

I'm curious whether you have better latency where you use 3G than I. For me Skype over 3G has a significant lag making it almost unusible.

Ctr-Alt-Del covered this well... (-1, Offtopic)

nweaver (113078) | more than 5 years ago | (#29392873)

http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20090911 [ctrlaltdel-online.com]

"We framed you for murder of this prostitute. Will you get angry and succumb to wrath? Or will you become depressed and sullen"

Prep for App Store? (1)

u0berdev (1038434) | more than 5 years ago | (#29392963)

I wonder if this is a strategic move to possibly get a Skype App approved for the iPhone -- removing the third-party content avenue. Just like the Commador 64 App.

Re:Prep for App Store? (1)

Cornwallis (1188489) | more than 5 years ago | (#29392987)

uhhh...then how do I have Skype on my iPhone?

Re:Prep for App Store? (2, Funny)

u0berdev (1038434) | more than 5 years ago | (#29393035)

uhhh...then how do I have Skype on my iPhone?

I fail.
There goes my karma...

Re:Prep for App Store? (1)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 5 years ago | (#29394759)

Only once I find that damn -1 Wrong moderation - I know I left it around here somewhere...

Re:Prep for App Store? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29393043)

there already is a skype app.

Re:Prep for App Store? (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 5 years ago | (#29393187)

Commador 64

Really?
I mean... Really?

Another software service with no way to make $$ (0)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 5 years ago | (#29393055)

I have never understood how Skype intends to make money. I use it for free communication over the Internet with friends who live at a distance. It saves me long distance charges/cell phone minutes, but I don't pay anything for it. If it cost, I would switch to some other means of communication.

Re:Another software service with no way to make $$ (4, Informative)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 5 years ago | (#29393143)

Are you kidding? Lots of people, me included, pay for skypeout minutes so we can call landlines and cell phones. Other pay for skypein numbers so they can get a number you can call in to from outside lines.

They probably make a heft amount of cash. Ebay recently sold them for quite a bit.

Re:Another software service with no way to make $$ (1)

fatalwall (873645) | more than 5 years ago | (#29393215)

how they price things i doubt they make a hefty sum of cash however most of the internet traffic is managed by the customers so they must be covering there costs with at least some kind of profit.

im one who pays for both skype out and in. so much cheaper then paying for a land line. also much easier to make conference calls from

Re:Another software service with no way to make $$ (2, Funny)

alexo (9335) | more than 5 years ago | (#29393611)

Ebay recently sold them for quite a bit.

Unfortunately for eBay, they originally bought them for quite a bit more.

Re:Another software service with no way to make $$ (3, Informative)

DotDotSlasher (675502) | more than 5 years ago | (#29393747)

Unfortunately for eBay, they originally bought them for quite a bit more.

EBay bought Skype in 2005 for $2.6B.
EBay sold 65% of Skype in 2009 for $1.9B (so the new value is $1.9B/.65 = $2.9B).
So - no, not "quite a bit more".

Re:Another software service with no way to make $$ (1)

Zerimar (1124785) | more than 5 years ago | (#29394595)

The original $2.6B was not the full purchase price. There was still a later portion to be paid out based on performance, which ended up being about $500M I believe, putting the total price around $3.1B.

Re:Another software service with no way to make $$ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29397943)

So 300 million is penny change to you? Thats 75million a year in profits.

Re:Another software service with no way to make $$ (4, Informative)

vertinox (846076) | more than 5 years ago | (#29393151)

I have never understood how Skype intends to make money.

They make money on people who need to talk with people who use regular phones.

You know... Like calling overseas to family that don't own computers.

Re:Another software service with no way to make $$ (-1, Flamebait)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 5 years ago | (#29393249)

I have never understood how Skype intends to make money.

They make money on people who need to talk with people who use regular phones.

That's what I use a regular phone for.

Re:Another software service with no way to make $$ (1)

rhook (943951) | more than 5 years ago | (#29393303)

Skype is much cheaper than a landline for international calls since it routes the call over the internet and then dials out from the country you're calling.

Re:Another software service with no way to make $$ (1)

dkf (304284) | more than 5 years ago | (#29394089)

Skype is much cheaper than a landline for international calls since it routes the call over the internet and then dials out from the country you're calling.

You are aware that that's what some telcos do with your call anyway? Of course, they then charge you full rate anyway...

Re:Another software service with no way to make $$ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29393477)

That's what YOU use a regular phone for. Not everyone else is you.

Minus one for lack of intelligent comment.

Re:Another software service with no way to make $$ (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#29393743)

Lets see here, either I have the choice of being screwed with a telephone company and paying out my butt for minutes. Or I can pay for some Skype minutes and save money. Which would you do?

Re:Another software service with no way to make $$ (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 5 years ago | (#29393913)

It costs $0.2 a min using Skype, ATT would charge $8 to just connect the call and then $1.5 a minute.

Re:Another software service with no way to make $$ (1)

JorDan Clock (664877) | more than 5 years ago | (#29395261)

Wait... Is that .2 cents or .2 dollars? [blogspot.com]

Re:Another software service with no way to make $$ (4, Informative)

fatalwall (873645) | more than 5 years ago | (#29393157)

If you have a reason to have a physical land line number but dont want to pay $30 a month to the local phone company its great!! $60 a year gives me a physical number people can call in from a normal phone. The calling out feature is handy at times as well. Say you need to have a 4-5 way call. Most phones area a pain to start that on. With skype i just right click the contact and add to conference. They can be using skype as well or in the case of the technically challenged they can use a land line.

Although i am unsure if ill say with all the shifts that are happening with it. Killing off features is a great way of giving the finger to your paying customers

MagicJack (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#29393473)

If you have a reason to have a physical land line number but dont want to pay $30 a month to the local phone company its great!! $60 a year

...isn't as cheap as MagicJack ($20/yr).

Re:MagicJack (1)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 5 years ago | (#29393963)

Hmmm... [google.com] , sounds like a great product. Stellar reviews and opinions.

Re:MagicJack (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 5 years ago | (#29394583)

Never mind that; your computer must be on to receive a call, otherwise it goes to voicemail. And no, you can't use it with a tiny Linux box that has a USB port; it only works with Windows or Intel Macs. Might as well just use a software-only phone.

Re:MagicJack (1)

cjb658 (1235986) | more than 5 years ago | (#29395655)

I tried Magicjack but the call quality was terrible. It wasn't my internets because I just had the number forwarded to my regular phone.

Then Google Voice came along...

Re:Another software service with no way to make $$ (1)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 5 years ago | (#29396287)

$60 a year gives me a physical number people can call in from a normal phone.

Perhaps the best part is that it's a number people cna call in from a normal phone with charges relative to the number they're calling.

Or put more clearly: Do you have friends or business contacts in England? Australia? China? Any country supported by SkypeIn? You can buy a number there and they can call you as if they were calling inside their own country. For a relatively cheap price, that has the potential to be extremely valuable.

Re:Another software service with no way to make $$ (1)

Wumpus (9548) | more than 5 years ago | (#29393273)

Skype is profitable, according to eBay.

Re:Another software service with no way to make $$ (1)

DotDotSlasher (675502) | more than 5 years ago | (#29393767)

Skype is profitable, according to eBay.

So that's profitable, as in they bring in more revenue than expenses.
But is it a reasonable profit for a company worth $2.9B?

Re:Another software service with no way to make $$ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29396567)

profitable = 600 million USD income last year. 65% shares = 1.9 bil, 100% shares = 2.9 bil , 0.6 bil yearly income is about 20% year , in 5 years it's in plusses .. 20% interest is damn good actually.

KGB considerations? (2, Interesting)

cryfreedomlove (929828) | more than 5 years ago | (#29393059)

Russia considers Skype a threat. [reuters.com] I wonder if this shut down is an effort to kill off my idea for using Skype to communicate on hostile internets. I wanted to create a skype Extra that uses PGP to encrypt the voice traffic between two parties communicating on a network that is controlled by an oppressive government that does not respect privacy.

Re:KGB considerations? (3, Informative)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 5 years ago | (#29393179)

Skype traffic is already encrypted and law enforcement agencies around the world hate that. Not just the KGB (which doesnt exist anymore btw its FSB now).

Call records can be subpoenaed. This is how pranknet was broken up.

Re:KGB considerations? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29394665)

Skype traffic is already encrypted and law enforcement agencies around the world hate that.

Oh, they love it. Did you miss those reports that "law enforcement agencies around the world" already have their backdoors into Skype? They were never denied by Skype or the agencies. Skype's secret source code, secret protocol and secret encryption algorithm help hide the hooks they're already using to listen in.

oppressive government that doesnt respect privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29393353)

>communicating on a network that is controlled by an
>oppressive government that does not respect privacy.

So basically, all of them?

Re:oppressive government that doesnt respect priva (1)

cryfreedomlove (929828) | more than 5 years ago | (#29394887)

Sure. But what's your point? Do you want to enable private communication or not?

Re:KGB considerations? (2, Informative)

operator_error (1363139) | more than 5 years ago | (#29393545)

There's no need to reinvent the wheel, and you can use open protocols too. May I suggest you apply zfone, from the inventor of PGP, to encrypt your SIP phone calls?

http://zfoneproject.com/getstarted.html [zfoneproject.com]

Re:KGB considerations? (1)

zn0k (1082797) | more than 5 years ago | (#29394745)

From that link: "It does not work with Skype."

Though it may be possible to use ZRTP with Skype somehow, zfone as an app seems to be out.

Re:KGB considerations? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#29395083)

It does not work with Skype.

Which is kind of the point. It works with SIP, which is already an open standard.

So you're not only wanting to reinvent the wheel, you're wanting to reinvent it for a proprietary protocol? It works with those seven or eight clients listed, all of which are interoperable, but that one is all you want?

I guess I'm not sure I see the point.

You know, they rebuilt Berlin wall (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 5 years ago | (#29395017)

If you have pissed some people enough to be tracked by spy agencies trying to tap your internet communication, they will likely put some high tech bug to your apartment and listen.

I really don't understand how people could treat Skype like companies like some kind of freedom fighters. Zimmerman is freedom fighter, Skype is a private company and gives no guarantee of privacy already.

Of course, I forgot, cold war is back and those baby eating reds are trying to tap into conversations.

Re:KGB considerations? (1)

Dalzhim (1588707) | more than 5 years ago | (#29393715)

Here's a summary of the article "Russia considers Skype a thread" for those who can't be bothered to read it:

Owners of telecom companies of Russia say Skype threatens their companies as well as national security.
Skype offering the possibility to make international calls a lot cheaper is one of those threats.
Skype threatens national security because it is foreign and thus it needs to be controlled.

Telecom companies ask to stop VoIP services otherwise it'd cause an uncontrolled fall in profits for them.
Another way Skype threatens national security is because police can't spy on skype calls.
The solution the telecom companies offer is to make VoIP services of their own, which would make it secure.
Thus they need regulations to stop skype, not because they want to limit competition, but because they want the market to be "civilised".

Basically, it's a whole lot of crap... I guess lobbying over here must be pretty much the same as what we can see here... or even worse.

Re:KGB considerations? (1)

cjb658 (1235986) | more than 5 years ago | (#29395669)

I seem to remember a ./ article about the Chinese version of Skype having a backdoor.

Never write a plug-in (4, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 5 years ago | (#29393525)

From a business perspective, never write a "plug-in". You're too vulnerable to the whims of the vendor into which your plug-in plugs. If you want to write one for fun, fine, but it's not a sound basis for a business venture.

Re:Never write a plug-in (1)

nrgy (835451) | more than 5 years ago | (#29393733)

I have to disagree with you.

In the visual effects field and graphics world plugins are part of daily life. Yes you do take the risk of the software developer dieing out or adding your functionality to the base product.

There are a number of plugin based development companies that have been around for quiet some time and the products they offer are just as important as the applications they are made for. Every business venture has its risks and most often regardless of your business model you are at the whims of something.

Re:Never write a plug-in (3, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 5 years ago | (#29395287)

In the visual effects field and graphics world plugins are part of daily life.

Someone at Autodesk once described the 3DS Max plug-in market to me as "400 people chasing $4 million in business". You don't want to be one of those 400 people.

Re:Never write a plug-in (1)

midicase (902333) | more than 5 years ago | (#29394167)

I would think that the hundreds of developers/companies that write applications (plugins) for the iPhone would disagree with you. How about the hundreds (thousands?) that write closed/open source kernel modules for Linux? Aren't these considered plugins? Apache dynamic modules? SMNP modules?

Re:Never write a plug-in (2, Insightful)

nicolas.kassis (875270) | more than 5 years ago | (#29395575)

And we all know how well the app for the iphone are doing when they do something Apple/at&t doesn't like.

Re:Never write a plug-in (1)

Jay L (74152) | more than 5 years ago | (#29394481)

But then would you say:

From a business perspective, never write an application for a proprietary operating system. You're too vulnerable to the whims of the vendor that distributes the OS.

or:

From a business perspective, never write an application that requires hardware. You're too vulnerable to the whims of the manufacturer.

Re:Never write a plug-in (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 5 years ago | (#29394519)

Slightly reworded: From a business perspective, never write an "application program". You're too vulnerable to the whims of the operating system under which your application runs. If you want to write one for fun, fine, but it's not a sound basis for a business venture.

Thoughts? Is it just a matter of scale, where the OS has many times more "plug-ins" than an application, and thus less-likely to change drastically or disappear?

Re:Never write a plug-in (1)

grotgrot (451123) | more than 5 years ago | (#29394765)

Starting with a plug-in is a good idea. There is existing infra-structure for you to fit in with and typically some sort of app store. You can then have some idea as to how popular your concept is and how much people are prepared to pay for it, as well as what the competition looks like. Then you can branch out to being standalone and remove the dependence on the framework vendor.

Re:Never write a plug-in (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 5 years ago | (#29394983)

As a person using home computers since 1980s, I have never, ever heard such behavior from any company in my life.

Open source, closed source, never ever heard such non serious action. What amazes me is, they actually sold those extras. There is some kind of money involved and the people who buys them are their great customers who must be using Skype as paying customers, not P2P free talkers.

If you provide an API and let people do plugins using that infrastructure, you keep it. There is no such thing as bailing out of it. I don't know Skype plugin guys or the scene but if there is some kind of million dollar involved, I can guarantee a lawsuit.

If you have a good plugin idea, just check if the company/source hosting is insane (which is unlikely) and ship it.

I know some pro photo guys who keeps using their photoshop 6 plugins under Photoshop CS4. They work flawlessly and yet, millions of lines under host application, managers, everything has been changed. They will need new&updated versions only when the host application goes pure 64bit and if they decide to delete CS4 from their system. That is normally the support/trust for Adobe/MS/Skype sized companies. They don't wake up one day and say "we are cancelling".

Re:Never write a plug-in (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#29395003)

Except if the software is open-source and free. Like with Firefox.

Re:Never write a plug-in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29396005)

From a business perspective, never write a "Application". You're too vulnerable to the whims of operating system which your Application runs. If you want to write one for fun, fine, but it's not a sound basis for a business venture.

fixed that for you :)

Re:Never write a plug-in (1)

Stan Vassilev (939229) | more than 5 years ago | (#29396795)

never write a plug-in

Oh I like that, simple and easy to follow. Or is it. Don't make it a plug-in, make it standalone. This way you only depend on the whims of those who provide your development tools, libraries, operating system and in some cases, hardware devices.

I wasn't a big fan of Skype Extras, but I specifically preferred Skype for its ability to record calls (first informing the other side), when discussing technical specifications and products, so I can go back to it and take more detailed notes.

Skype may be trying to close Pandora's box here. There are already lots of people stuck at version 3 of their client since version 4 did a very poor redesign of the UI and dropped desirable features. If you would tell your users "and with the next version we drop Extras", they'll simply not upgrade, ever.

Flash (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 5 years ago | (#29400123)

Yeah because nobody figured out a way to monetize a plug in...

same as subject (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29394205)

meh, I just use a landline from AT&T with unlimited long distance within the US and parts of Canada for $20/month. Dunno why so many are ditching land lines just to deal with headaches.

Unlimited long distance from verizon? Try $80/mon (1)

Fished (574624) | more than 5 years ago | (#29395113)

Or at least that was the case a few years ago. I ditched my LL long ago.

Re:same as subject (1)

Snwbeast (21484) | more than 5 years ago | (#29395141)

That's super if you never travel. If you end up in other countries and need a cheap way to call home however Skype is useful.

Re:same as subject (1)

nicolas.kassis (875270) | more than 5 years ago | (#29395593)

I use vonage for that

stupid topic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29394267)

why do my posts never show up here?

impacts accessibility negatively (2, Interesting)

osssmkatz (734824) | more than 5 years ago | (#29394279)

Skype should change their mind. This allowed skype to be the de-facto platform. My friend with a disability needs text to speech and other things, that were available as extras or could potentially be.

So? (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#29394835)

We'll go to SIP, XMPP with Jingle & Co. I certainly couldn't care less, as I never saw the point in yet another video-capable instant messenger or alternatively another proprietary SIP clone.

What a great first step for new management(!) (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 5 years ago | (#29394933)

Their first step was pissing off their developer partners, basically putting some of them out of business. Millions of lines got wasted, users who likes those tools enough to pay for them are abandoned and they will soon get "we would love to provide updates but Skype abandoned us" e-mail alerts.

One thing even Steve Jobs admitted numerous times, even before the audience and sitting next to BillG himself: MS key to success was always working with other developers/partners. Besides being an evil empire, that is what made MS the MS of today.

I hope Gizmo guys won't waste this opportunity to make a plugin SDK which is somehow close to Skype and advertise it. For some reason, they keep wasting these PR opportunities.

BTW; here is the real World state of plugins: Fring for S60 which is just a massively multi protocol IM/voice client has freaking last.fm plugin, that plays MUSIC inside the client. I am not sure about other versions and God forbid Apple would allow such thing to their app store but it shows where the World is heading to.

While mentioning last.fm, it is the open API which made them last.fm of today. Anyone could build on their foundation and as you see from Fring case, you can even make an API to connect to their API and play music, on a low end Symbian S60 phone.

Don't forget next step Skype, cancel those stupid "device" accesses so World can standardize on a real open protocol. We are happily building MSN/YIM/ICQ/AIM idiocy in 2000s, once more...

Re:What a great first step for new management(!) (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 5 years ago | (#29400139)

I don't see why Apple would ban something like Fring or Last.FM considering both are available in the AppStore right now. Apple is over the top, but they seem follow their own (vague) rules.

Re:What a great first step for new management(!) (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 5 years ago | (#29400155)

Sorry to reply to self, but I think upon further reading that you are referring to a plug-in based extensible app. True Apple wouldn't allow that, but if they were pre-compiled individual binaries released it would be just fine.

Ok, now.... (2, Interesting)

crhylove (205956) | more than 5 years ago | (#29397079)

OK, can the Pidgin team PLEASE finish up voice and video support (AND ON WINDOWS!), so I can switch everybody over?

Thanks in Advance.

is this allowed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29397297)

Is this even allowed?
I mean, if microsoft would disallow third parties from creating software (like browsers) for their platform, then sure there would be a problem.

Can't be run with SoftICE (1)

g00ey (1494205) | more than 5 years ago | (#29397705)

I find this so annoying that Skype refuses to start when SoftICE is installed on the system. There are so many debuggers out there that it doesn't react to so why dis SoftICE?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?